J. Thurmond

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. I thank the Senator.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of routine morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, among the greatest traditions in my state and in many parts of the country are high school football games on Friday nights. These are very important events each fall in the lives of students and their families in countless communities. These athletic activities often include a simple, non-denominational prayer to set the tone for the evening, and to promote good sportsmanship and safety for the students. These prayers are beneficial to students and spectators alike. Recently, prayer at high school football games in a Texas public school district was challenged as unconstitutional. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held in a divided opinion that this practice violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The case is being considered by the Supreme Court today, and it is my hope that the Court will reverse this misguided decision. I have long believed that non-denominational prayer should be permitted in public schools. I believe that our society for years has been going too far in trying to create a complete separation between church and state. The fact is that religion has always been a central part in the lives of Americans, and each generation seeks to pass these values on to their children. The courts should recognize the role of religion, and not try to separate it from every aspect of public life. Indeed, the government should encourage the expression of religious beliefs by our young people. We should not require them to check their religion at the door when they enter the school house or any other public building. When I open the Senate each morning, we have our Chaplain deliver an opening prayer. I think it is vital that we start each day with this prayer. Yet, there is no more public building than the United States Capitol. Our children certainly should not be denied this same benefit at football games. In the case the Supreme Court is considering, it is entirely clear that the prayer is not controlled or sponsored by the state. The prayer is conducted during an extracurricular activity, not during school hours. Also, the prayer is not led or controlled by teachers or school administrators. Rather, the students choose whether they wish to have prayer at their football game and, if so, which student will lead the prayer. The students make the decisions. I hope that the Supreme Court will decide that the school's policy of permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games does not violate the establishment clause. Student prayers at these events are a vital part of these traditions, and I sincerely hope the Court will agree.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for Senate Joint Resolution 14, the constitutional amendment to protect the flag of the United States. I believe it is vital that we enact this amendment without further delay. We have considered this issue in the Judiciary Committee and on the Senate Floor many times in the past decade. I have fought to achieve protection for the flag ever since the Supreme Court first legitimized flag burning in the case of Texas v. Johnson in 1989. The American flag is much more than a piece of cloth. During moments of despair and crisis throughout the history of our great Nation, the American people have turned to the flag as a symbol of national unity. It represents our values, ideals, and proud heritage. There is no better symbol of freedom and democracy in the world than our flag. As former Senator Bob Dole said a few years ago, it is the one symbol that brings to life the Latin phrase that appears in front of me in the Senate Chamber, e pluribus unum, which means, ``out of many, one.'' Ever since the American Revolution, our soldiers have put their lives on the line to defend what the flag represents. We have a duty to honor their sacrifices by giving the flag the protection it once had, and clearly deserves today. In our history, the Congress has been very reluctant to amend the Constitution, and I agree with this approach. However, the Constitution provides for a method of amendment, and there are a few situations where an amendment is warranted. This is one of them. The only real argument against this amendment is that it interferes with an absolute interpretation of the free speech clause of the first amendment. However, restrictions on speech already exist through constitutional interpretation. In fact, before the Supreme Court ruled on this issue, the Federal government and the States believed that flag burning was not constitutionally protected speech. The Federal government and almost every state had laws prohibiting desecration that were thought to be valid before the Supreme Court ruled otherwise in 1989. Passing this amendment would once again give the Congress the authority to protect the flag from physical desecration. It would not reduce the Bill of Rights. It would simply overturn a few very recent judicial decisions that rejected America's traditional approach to the flag under the law. Flag burning is intolerable. We have no obligation to permit this nonsense. Have we focused so much on the rights of the individual that we have forgotten the rights of the people? I strongly urge all my colleagues to join with us today and support this amendment. We are on the side of the American people, and I am firmly convinced that we are on the side of what is right. Once and for all, we should pass this constitutional amendment and give the flag of the United States of America the protection it deserves.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise to express my opposition to the nominations of Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit is clearly out of the mainstream of law in this country today. It is clearly the most activist circuit in the Nation. The circuit has been reversed by the Supreme Court in almost 90 percent of the cases that have been considered in the past 6 years. In fact, in the current session of the Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit's record is zero of seven. These nominees will not correct this problem. Judge Paez is a self-described liberal. He has made inappropriate comments regarding ballot initiatives that were pending in California at the time he discussed them. I also have questions regarding his sentencing of John Huang. Further, he has made various questionable rulings that call into question whether he understands the limited role of a judge in our system of government. For example, he ruled that a Los Angeles ordinance that prohibited aggressive panhandling was unconstitutional. He prevented the enforcement of a reasonable ordinance enacted by the legislative branch because he said it violated free speech rights. The California Supreme Court later ruled contrary to Judge Paez after the question was submitted to them. This shows a lack of deference to the legislative branch. Also, he made a questionable ruling holding an American corporation liable for human rights violations committed by a foreign government, which prompted the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to oppose his nomination. I also cannot support the nomination of Marsha Berzon. She has spent much of her career as an attorney for the labor movement, and she has been involved in liberal legal organizations. She served for years on the board of directors of the Northern California, ACLU, during which it filed questionable briefs in various cases. If these nominees are confirmed, I hope they turn out to be sound, mainstream judges and not judicial activists from the left. I hope they will improve the dismal reversal rate of the ninth circuit. However, we must evaluate judges based on the record before us. I am not convinced that these nominees are a sound addition to the ninth circuit, especially when it is already leaning far to the left. Therefore, I must opposed these nominees.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce nine bills which will suspend the duties imposed on certain chemicals that are important components for a wide array of applications. Currently, these chemicals are imported for use in the United States because there are no known domestic producers or readily available substitutes. Therefore, suspending the duties on these chemicals would not adversely affect domestic industries. This bill would temporarily suspend the duty on meta- chlorobenzaldehyde; propiophenone; 4-bromo-2- fluoroacetanilide; 2, 6-dichlorotoluene; menthyl anthranilate; cyclooctene; cyclohexadeca-1, 9-diene; cyclohexadec-8-en-1-one; and high molecular weight polymerized powders, which are used as intermediate chemicals in the manufacturing of a number of products including, but not limited to, fragrances, agricultural inputs, pharmaceuticals, water filters elements, surgical orthopedic hip and knee implants, and fibers used to make bullet-proof vests. Mr. President, suspending the duty on these chemicals will benefit the consumer by stabilizing the costs of manufacturing the end-use products. Further, these suspensions will allow domestic producers to maintain or improve their ability to compete internationally. I hope the Senate will consider these measures expeditiously. I ask unanimous consent that the text of these bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce nine bills which will suspend the duties imposed on certain chemicals that are important components for a wide array of applications. Currently, these chemicals are imported for use in the United States because there are no known domestic producers or readily available substitutes. Therefore, suspending the duties on these chemicals would not adversely affect domestic industries. This bill would temporarily suspend the duty on meta- chlorobenzaldehyde; propiophenone; 4-bromo-2- fluoroacetanilide; 2, 6-dichlorotoluene; menthyl anthranilate; cyclooctene; cyclohexadeca-1, 9-diene; cyclohexadec-8-en-1-one; and high molecular weight polymerized powders, which are used as intermediate chemicals in the manufacturing of a number of products including, but not limited to, fragrances, agricultural inputs, pharmaceuticals, water filters elements, surgical orthopedic hip and knee implants, and fibers used to make bullet-proof vests. Mr. President, suspending the duty on these chemicals will benefit the consumer by stabilizing the costs of manufacturing the end-use products. Further, these suspensions will allow domestic producers to maintain or improve their ability to compete internationally. I hope the Senate will consider these measures expeditiously. I ask unanimous consent that the text of these bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I commend the able Senator from Georgia for the fine job in handling this bill.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise to discuss my concern regarding recent developments in the Dickerson case concerning voluntary confessions. Opponents are using some extreme tactics to encourage the Supreme Court to strike down this law. For years, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, including myself, encouraged the Clinton Justice Department to enforce 18 U.S.C. 3501, the law on voluntary confessions. In the Dickerson case, the Department refused to permit career federal prosecutors to rely on the law in their efforts to make sure a serial bank robber did not get away. When the Supreme Court was deciding whether to hear the case, the Department had the opportunity to defend the statute, as many of us encouraged it to do. While making its decision, the Department consulted with certain federal law enforcement agencies. The Drug Enforcement Administration explained that Miranda in its current form is problematic in some circumstances and encouraged the Department to defend the law. The Department later wrote in its brief about the views of federal law enforcement in this matter, but that support for the statute and reservation about Miranda is nowhere to be found. Instead, the brief states ``federal law enforcement agencies have concluded that the Miranda decision itself generally does not hinder their investigations and the issuance of Miranda warnings at the outset of custodial interrogation is in the best interests of law enforcement as well as the suspect.'' The brief should recognize that there is disagreement among federal law enforcement agencies about the impact of the Miranda warnings in investigations and the need for reform of the Miranda requirements. The Department should not generalize in a brief before the Supreme Court to the point of misrepresentation. Senator Hatch and I sent a letter to Attorney General Reno and Solicitor General Waxman last week asking for an explanation in this matter, and I look forward to their response. One of the amicus briefs, which was filed by the House Democratic leadership, takes a very novel approach toward the statute. It seems to suggest that the voluntary confessions law is not really a law after all. It states that the ``Congress enacted section 3501 largely for symbolic purposes, to make an election year statement in 1968 about law and order, not to mount a challenge to Miranda.'' This statement is not only inaccurate. It is completely inappropriate. I was in the Senate when the voluntary confessions law was debated and passed over 30 years ago. A bipartisan majority of the Congress supported this law, and Democrats were in the majority at the time. We did not enact the law to make some vague statement about crime. We passed the voluntary confessions law because we were extremely concerned about the excesses of the Miranda decision allowing an unknown number of defendants who voluntarily confessed their crimes to go free on a technicality. We passed it to be enforced. For the House Democratic leadership brief to state that the Congress did not intend for a law that it passed to be enforced trivializes the legislative branch at the expense of the executive. It is a dangerous mistake for the legislative branch to defer to the executive regarding what laws to enforce. The executive branch has a constitutional duty to enforce the laws, unless they are clearly unconstitutional. Contrary to what is happening today, the executive branch is not free to ignore acts of Congress simply because it does not support them, and the legislative branch should not support this approach. In this matter, the Justice Department has refused to abide by its duty to faithfully execute the laws, and has instead chosen to side with criminals and defense attorneys over prosecutors and law enforcement. It is unfortunate that, in this case, the Department will be making arguments on behalf of criminals before the Supreme Court. No arguments about the law will change this sad fact. I yield the floor.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, we begin the new session of the 106th Congress on a sad note, marking the passing of a good friend and former colleague, Senator Carl T. Curtis of Nebraska, who died recently at the age of 94. For those of you who are new to the Senate, Carl was a great man who rendered a valuable service to his state and our nation throughout his career. First elected to the United States House of Representatives in 1938 and the United States Senate in 1954, Carl holds the record for being the Nebraskan to serve the longest in the United States Congress. In total, he spent almost forty-one-years on Capitol Hill before retiring from the Senate in 1979. During his tenure as a Federal legislator, he earned a well deserved reputation for fiscal conservatism, limited government, and was known as a champion of farmers and agricultural issues. He was party loyalist and a true conservative who never sacrificed personal convictions for the sake of public opinion. Among other issues, he was steadfast in his backing of President Nixon and our fight against communism in Southeast Asia even though these were highly unpopular positions at that time. An indication of his commitment to the conservative cause was the close alliance between he and Barry Goldwater, as a matter of fact, Carl managed the floor during the 1964 Republican Presidential Convention in San Francisco when Senator Goldwater was seeking the nomination of the party. Perhaps most importantly, Carl was known for his commitment to his constituents, nothing was more important to him than helping the people of Nebraska. Such dedication to helping others is truly the hallmark of an individual devoted to public service. During the course of our time in the Senate together, I came to know Carl quite well as we had much in common, as a matter of fact, he and I both entered the Senate in 1954 and that was not the least of our similarities. Beyond being like-minded on so many issues, we were essentially contemporaries, having grown-up on farms, read for the law instead of going to law school, and prefering to be out meeting with our constituents. It was always a pleasure to work with Carl on any number of issues and I valued his alliance as a Senator and his friendship as an individual. It was a high honor to be asked to serve as an honorary pall bearer by the Curtis family, though I hate to say ``goodbye'' to my old friend. Carl Curtis was the embodiment of a public-minded citizen who dedicated his life to making a difference. From his stint as Kearney County Attorney to his role as an elder statesman, Carl Curtis always sought to build a community, state, and nation that were better for all its citizens. He set an exemplary example for integrity, diligence, and conviction, and others would do well to follow the high standards to which he held himself. My sympathies go out to his widow, Mildred, his son Carl T. Curtis, Jr., his grandchildren and great-grandchildren. All can be proud of this fine man who we are all better for having known.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Supreme Court announced recently that it will decide whether state governments are bound by the Americans with Disabilities Act. The issue in the case, Dickson v. Florida, is whether the states are immune from suit under the ADA based on the Constitution's 11th Amendment immunity provision for states. The legal issues are quite similar to Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, in which the Supreme Court held earlier this month that the states cannot be sued under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. This case could be critical to a bill I have introduced, the State and Local Prison Relief Act. This legislation, S. 32, would exclude state prisoners from coverage under the ADA. The Dickson case underscores the need to accomplish the purpose of this bill. The Congress did not consider all of the potential consequences of enacting the ADA, and its implications on prisons is one of the best examples. The courts have always deferred to the states in the management of prisons. We do not need the federal courts second-guessing the states' decisions on how to best manage and control the volatile prison environment. This is especially true in the face of a statute that creates very specific legal rights for very broad classes of individuals. The Act is detrimental to the safe, orderly operation of state prisons. Moreover, at the very least, it gives prisoners more of an excuse to challenge authority by providing them more tools to bring frivolous lawsuits against state prisons. Dickson is a case of great significance. It provides the Supreme Court a unique opportunity to limit the reach of Federal power over state prisons and continue its recent affirmation of the power of the states in our constitutional scheme of government. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, I rise today in strong support of S. 625, the Bankruptcy Reform Act. This legislation is urgently needed to address abuses of our bankruptcy laws and help make sure bankruptcy is reserved for those who truly need it. We have had Federal bankruptcy laws for 100 years, and no one disputes that some people must file for bankruptcy. Some people fall on hard times and have financial problems that dwarf their financial means. They need to have the debts that they cannot pay forgiven, and they need a fresh start. However, other people who file for bankruptcy have assets or have the ability to repay their debts over time. These people should reorganize their debts. Bankruptcy should not be an avenue for people to avoid paying their debts when they have the ability to do so. People should pay what they can. The problem is becoming more serious because more and more people are filing for bankruptcy every year. The number of consumer bankruptcy filings has more than quadrupled in the last 20 years. More Americans filed for bankruptcy last year than ever before. S. 625 addresses the issue by making it easier for judges to transfer cases from Chapter 7 discharge to Chapter 13 reorganization, based on the income of the debtor and other factors. The bill permits creditors to be involved if they believe the debtor has the ability to repay. However, if a creditor abuses that power and brings such motions without substantial justification, the creditor is penalized. Also, the legislation places more responsibility on attorneys to steer individuals toward paying what they can. The bill makes reforms without jeopardizing the truly needy. For example, the bill has special provisions to protect mothers who depend on child support by making these payments the top priority for payment in bankruptcy. It is too easy to file for bankruptcy. It is too easy to get the slate wiped clean. We recognize that some people need a fresh start. But a fresh start should not mean a free ride. We must stop this type of abuse. I urge my colleagues to support this important reform measure.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Conference Report to H.R. 1554, the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act. This is pro-consumer legislation which will promote much needed competition among television providers. This legislation allows satellite carriers to carry local television stations for the first time. Consumers now will have a choice between cable companies and satellite companies that offer similar programming. This competition should help lower costs and increase quality service for all consumers. In addition, this legislation contains many other pro-consumer provisions. For example, it protects consumers who are about to lose their distant signals and establishes a new consumer-friendly process to determine distant signal eligibility. This legislation also protects local broadcasters who provide a valuable service to our communities. Most importantly, local broadcasters should benefit from the legislation's must carry requirements. The members of the conference also agreed on a provision which would encourage satellite carriers and other entities to provide local into local network service in small and rural markets. However, this provision was taken out at the last minute. I strongly support fiscally sound ways of encouraging satellite carriers and other entities to provide local network television in small and rural markets. This legislation is a good step in promoting competition among satellite and cable providers. I urge support of this legislation, and I look forward to working early next year with other Senators regarding local into local network service for small and rural markets.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, everyone recognizes that to field an efficient fighting force, we must have the service of patriotic and selfless individuals who are willing to enter the military and stand ready to defend our nation, its citizens, interests, and ideals. What many do not recognize is the vital importance of building support in the greater community for those brave young men and women who are serving in uniform. We need our citizens who are not in military service to be supportive of those who do, especially of those who serve in the Guard and Reserve. I rise today to pay tribute to a faithful public servant, Mr. Coy A. Short of Atlanta, Georgia, whose hard work and selflessness have contributed greatly to the Reserve and Guard programs of our armed forces. On December 6th, Coy Short will be honored by the State of Georgia for his nine-years of able and visionary leadership as the Chairman of the Georgia Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve. In that capacity he has been responsible for helping to raise employer awareness about the importance of Guard and Reserve forces to our national defense. While Coy is going to be saluted for the work he did as Chairman of the Georgia Committee, his commitment to public service goes far deeper and runs far longer than his tenure in that position. Clearly, his contributions have benefitted the State of Georgia and the nation. Coy began his career in public service when as a young 1957 graduate of Emory University, he took the oath of an officer in the United States Army and accepted a commission in the Artillery. He rose to the rank of Captain before leaving military service, and his time on active duty taught him many valuable lessons, not the least of which was the importance of maintaining a strong defense and supporting those who serve. After leaving the Army, Coy tried his hand at a number of entrepreneurial enterprises and while successful, he like many who serve their country missed the satisfaction that came from doing something for the benefit of others. In 1977, he began a career with the Social Security Administration that has been a tremendous success by any measure, rising to the position of Deputy Regional Commissioner. The most important gauge of success, however, would be the assistance he has rendered to tens of thousands of Americans. Coy's tireless efforts and adept abilities as a manager have earned him repeated recognitions, including the ``Commissioner's Citation'', the highest award given by the Social Security Administration. Coy learned at an early age the importance of supporting our men and women in uniform. Nothing does more for the morale of those who serve in the military than to know that they are appreciated by those they protect. Toward that goal, Coy Short has always been more than willing to roll-up his sleeves and lend his support to any effort that makes life for our troops a little easier, or demonstrates to them the high regard in which they are held by their fellow Americans. He is especially well known for his work as Chairman of the Georgia Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve, where he has sought to involve others in this important endeavor. This work is especially critical in a day and age when we increasingly rely on those who serve in non-active components to support ``real world'' missions. The recognition that is being bestowed upon him early next month is a testament to the fine job he has done in boosting support in the community for our ``citizen-soldiers'', his work has made it easier for men and women to get time off from work to meet their obligations to their units and help us meet our national defense goals. While we can all be proud of what Coy Short has accomplished as Chairman of the Georgia Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve, his commitment to helping the military is not limited to his service to that body. He also serves as President of the B-29 Superfortress Association, which has restored and put on display at Dobbins Air Reserve Base one of those classic World War II era bombers, named ``The Sweet Eloise'', and is working on restoring the tenth C-130 Hercules to have been produced in Georgia, which will also be displayed at that facility. Additionally, Coy serves on the Executive Committee of the USO Council of Georgia, as Ambassador for the U.S. Army Reserve, and is a member of the Atlanta Chamber of Commerce's Greater Atlanta Military Affairs Council Executive Committee. In the past, he has served as the President of the Atlanta Chapter of the Association of the United States Army and as the Chairman of Peach Bowl's Community Events Committee. Not surprisingly, Coy's efforts have won him deservingly high praise and recognition in many forms including winning the prestigious Sam Nunn Award for Outstanding Support of the National Guard; the Oglethorpe Distinguished Service Medal for Outstanding Support of the Georgia Guard; the National Distinguished Service Award from the Association of the United States Army; the National Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve Award for Outstanding Public Service; the Army Commendation Medal, awarded for public service on behalf of Army Forces Command; the Atlanta Chamber of Commerce Phoenix Award; the Dobbins Air Reserve Base Man of the Year Award; the Eli White Award of the Old Guard of the Gate City Guard; and, twice winning the National Guard Association's Patrick Henry Award. I am pleased and proud to be able to have this opportunity to commend my good friend, Coy Short, on his many years of public service and the invaluable support he has given to our armed forces, particularly those who serve in the Guard and Reserve. It is my hope that others will be inspired to follow the lead that Coy has set for public service. The qualities of patriotism, selflessness, and duty were obviously instilled in him at an early age, and we have all benefitted from his devotion to service. Certainly Coy's mother, Eloise Strom, as well as Coy's wife Judy, deserve special recognition for the role they played in Coy's success. Coy, we appreciate all your good work and know you will continue to find ways to make a difference in the lives of those who live in Georgia, Atlanta, and all those who serve in the armed forces of the United States.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is perhaps the most renown and respected law enforcement agency in the world. Though the FBI is famous for its laboratories, embracing new crime fighting techniques, and ability to ``get its man'', the real secret and heart of this organization's success has always been its people---the capable, courageous, and conscientious men and women who serve as Special Agents. Today, I rise to pay tribute to an individual who has given much to the FBI and the nation, Robert M. ``Bear'' Bryant, who will retire from his position as the Deputy Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation on November 30th. Bear Bryant's career as a Special Agent began in 1968, when he hit the foggy and mean streets of Seattle, Washington, a distinctly different environment than his native Missouri. The atmosphere in Seattle, and across the nation, was combustible and there was just the right amount of tension to spur extensive criminal and violent activities. Without question, it was a busy and dangerous time to be making one's living as a lawman, and it was in such an environment that Special Agent Bryant cut his teeth in law enforcement and made a lifelong commitment to the Bureau. Though he certainly had no inkling as a young Special Agent that his career would take him to the most senior levels of the FBI, Robert Bryant would spend three decades criss-crossing the United States as his career moved progressively forward and up the FBI chain of command. Subsequent assignments to Dallas, Headquarters in Washington, Salt Lake City, and Kansas City, as well as promotions to Supervisor, Permanent Inspector, and Special Agent in Charge, all helped to prepare Bear for his ultimately taking the second-in-command slot in the Bureau. Surely one of the most rewarding assignments Bear had during his career was the time he spent as Special Agent in Charge of the Washington Field Office. When he took that job in 1991, the Capital was a violent city as a result of ``crack wars'' that were breaking out in urban areas from coast to coast. As the Special Agent in Charge of the Washington Field Office, Bear Bryant was responsible for establishing the ``Bureau Safe Streets'' program, which directed significant FBI resources toward combating street-level organized crime. The success of Mr. Bryant's efforts and leadership are evident. Thanks to his efforts, in conjunction with other agencies including the Metropolitan Police, crime is down in this city today, especially those offenses associated with the crack trade. This program was so successful in the District of Columbia, it was adapted as a tactic for reducing violent crime in other cities and there are currently more than 160 taskforces in operation throughout the United States making streets safe again. Those familiar with the FBI will tell you that service as the Special Agent in Charge of the Washington Field Office is an indication that someone is on their way to assuming one of the senior positions within the leadership of the Bureau, and in 1993, SAC Bryant was tapped for the very critical post of Assistant Director of the National Security Division. This segment of the Bureau is responsible for battling the considerable threats to national security from both outside and within the borders of the United States. During his tenure of the head of the National Security Division, Mr. Bryant was responsible for supervising and directing investigations that represented some of the most serious acts of espionage, treason, and terrorism that law enforcement has had to deal with in recent years including, the Oklahoma City bombing, the bombing of the Al-Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, as well as the espionage cases of Aldrich Ames, Earl Edwin Pitts, and Harold Nicholson. Two-years-ago, Director Louis Freeh needed a new Deputy Director and given his considerable experience as an investigator, supervisor, and administrator, it came to no one's surprise that it was Bear Bryant who took the co-pilot's chair. The position of Deputy Director is one of great responsibility and importance, for it is this person who runs the day-to-day operations of the Bureau and its 28,000 agents and support personnel. In addition to assuring the smooth running of this global agency that is always on duty, Deputy Director Bryant was also tasked with drafting the Bureau's strategic plan for the next five years, a document which has been described as a ``sea change'' in FBI policy for it included a major reassessment of how resources are allocated and how the Bureau is going to do its job. Robert ``Bear'' Bryant has had a career of impressive achievement and unflagging service. Through his work, he has taken criminals, spies, and terrorists off of our streets and put them into the prison cells where they belong, and in the process, he has helped to keep the United States and its citizens safe. After more than thirty-years since raising his right hand and taking the oath as a Special Agent, Deputy Director Bryant has decided to retire from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. We are grateful for his diligent service, and I am sure that all my colleagues would join me in wishing Mr. Bryant, his wife of 33-years, Beth, and their three children Barbara, Dan, and Matt, happiness, health, and success in all their future endeavors.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, ``Hero'' is a word that is inappropriately used with some frequency in this day and age. This is certainly unfortunate, for a true ``hero'' is not the person who caught the game winning pass, but is an individual who has distinguished themself through courage. No matter how diluted this term have become through informal and casual use, it remains simply the best way to describe James E. Williams. There was a time not long ago when all Americans understood the importance of military service and the notion of sacrificing of one's self for the better of the nation. James Williams was one such man, an individual who was so anxious to render military service, he lied about his age in order to join the United States Navy in 1946. Over the course of his career, Mr. Williams would repeatedly demonstrate his fierce determination and bravery. Our involvement in the conflict in Vietnam was still relatively small in 1966, but such was not the case for those who were working to topple the democratic government of the Republic of Vietnam. Communist forces were operating extensively throughout South Vietnam, terrorizing peasants, and fighting a low intenstity conflict against our forces and our allies. That the infiltration of the enemy into the Republic of Vietnam was largescale was proven on that day late in October of 1966 when Mr. Williams and eight other sailors operating on two different plastic river boats engaged in a three-hour firefight with enemy personnel. As a result of that action, more than 1,000 communist military personnel were killed in action, and almost seventy North Vietnamese boats were sunk or destroyed. The courage demonstrated by Mr. Williams in the face of overwhelming odds, and the effective attack he mounted, led to his being awarded the Medal of Honor for his actions. Only the citation from the Medal of Honor awarded Mr. Williams adequately describes his heroism, and it reads: For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty as a member of River Section 531 during combat operations on the Mekong River in the Republic of Vietnam. On 31 October 1966, Petty Officer Williams was serving as Boat Captain and Patrol Officer aboard River Patrol Boat (PBR) 105 accompanied by another patrol boat when the patrol was suddenly taken under fire by two enemy sampans. Petty Officer Williams immediately ordered the fire returned, killing the crew of one enemy boat and causing the other sampan to take refuge in a nearby river inlet. Pursuing the fleeing sampan, the U.S. patrol encountered a heavy volume of small arms fire from enemy forces, at close range, occupying well-concealed positions along the river bank. Maneuvering through this fire, the patrol confronted a numerically superior enemy force aboard two enemy junks and eight sampans augmented by heavy automatic weapons fire from ashore. In the savage battle that ensued, Petty Officer Williams, with utter disregard for his own safety, exposed himself to the withering hail of enemy fire to direct counterfire and inspire the actions of his patrol. Recognizing the overwhelming strength of the enemy force, Petty Officer Williams deployed his patrol to await the arrival of armed helicopters. In the course of this movement he discovered an even larger concentration of enemy boats. Not waiting for the arrival of the armed helicopters, he displayed great initiative and boldly led the patrol through the intense enemy fire and damaged or destroyed fifty enemy sampans and seven junks. This phase of the action completed, and with the arrival of the armed helicopters, Petty Officer Williams directed the attack on the remaining enemy force. Now virtually dark, and although Petty Officer Williams was aware that his boats would become even better targets, he ordered the patrol boats' search lights turned on to better illuminate the area and moved the patrol perilously close to shore to press the attack. Despite a waning supply of ammunition the patrol successfully engaged the enemy ashore and completed the rout of the enemy force. Under the leadership of Petty Officer Williams, who demonstrated unusual professional skill and indomitable courage throughout the three hour battle, the patrol accounted for the destruction or loss of sixty-five enemy boats and inflicted numerous casualties on the enemy personnel. His extraordinary heroism and exemplary fighting spirit in the face of grave risks inspired the efforts of his men to defeat a larger enemy force, and are in keeping with the finest traditions of the United States Naval Service. By the time Mr. Williams retired in 1967, and having fought in two wars, he was the most decorated enlisted man in the history of the United States Navy. Anyone who looked at the medals adorning his dress uniform would immediately recognize James Williams as a hero by noting his three Purple Hearts; three Bronze Stars; the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry; the Navy and Marine Corps Medal; two Silver Stars; the Navy Cross; and of course, the Medal of Honor. Despite having served his nation commendably and heroically, James Williams still wanted to contribute to society and hoped to follow in the footsteps of his father as a lawman. In 1969, Mr. Williams was nominated as the United States Marshal for the District of South Carolina by President Richard M. Nixon, and he again distinguished himself as a no-nonsense law and order man, vital for a day and age when some people reveled in challenging the system and in seeking confrontation with authorities. I doubt that too many people were foolish to cross swords with James E. Williams, and his work as a law enforcement official helped keep South Carolina safe and peaceful. In the years following his retirement from Federal service, Mr. Williams continued to contribute to the nation, but as a private citizen. He was very active in the ``Medal of Honor Society'', a private organization dedicated to promoting knowledge and education about America's highest award. He was also a member of the board of directors of the Patriot's Point Development Authority, which has created a military park in the Charleston area, and is also home to the above mentioned Medal of Honor Society. Despite his heroism and his many high recognitions, James Williams was a down to earth individual. He refused offers to tell his story in print and on film, and he remained a plain talking, straight forward, good humored man to the day of his death. While Mr. Williams may no longer be among us, he has earned a legendary spot in Navy lore and the history of the United States, and he will always be remembered as the brave and selfless patriot he was.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, as we consider the African Growth and Opportunity Act, I rise to speak about the status of the United States textile and apparel industry. Last week I made a more complete statement regarding the demise of the industry, done in the name of free trade, under the guise of promoting market-based economies and democratic governments in developing countries. The result of these trade agreements on the textile and apparel industry in the United States has been a flood of imports and a significant impact on employment. In my own state, the loss of textile and apparel jobs has been particularly devastating. Since 1987, South Carolina has lost nearly one-third of all textile jobs and over 50 percent of all its apparel jobs. Another concern I have is how our legislation impacts our broader foreign policy and drug control objectives. I am concerned that as we propose to drastically increase container shipping through the Caribbean, we will be exposing our Nation to the potential for a tremendous increase in illicit drug imports. Mr. President, the key to resolving many of our hemispheric problems is coordinating our criminal justice efforts, defense requirements, foreign policy, and economic and trade strategy toward Latin American countries. We cannot afford to look at these in isolation of one another. Finally, let me highlight some of the more dangerous elements of legislation which some in Congress are proposing. While the Senate bill alleviates some of the worst of these issues, I want the record to be clear on why these provisions must never become law. If, by some chance, this bill moves to a conference with the House, there may be an effort to incorporate some of these proposals. This would be a terrible mistake. There are some in Congress who would favor the quota-free entry into the United States for apparel made in the Caribbean Basin countries from fabric produced anywhere in the world. Such a provision would void the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing. Another flawed proposal is the scheme to use Tariff Preference Levels, whereby fabric produced anywhere in the world may be used in apparel sewn in the Caribbean Basin countries and imported duty-free and quota-free into the United States. Such preferences are permitted under NAFTA. Canada has used its preferences to export into the United States textile and apparel products made of non-North American yarns and fabrics. This violation of NAFTA has permitted $300 million from textile mills in Europe and Asia to severely damage U.S. manufacturers of wool suits and wool fabrics as well as other U.S. producers. Likewise, Mexico is now sending textiles and apparel made from cheap Asian yarns and fabrics into the United States. Tariff Preference Levels are bad for the American textile and apparel industry and for its workers. They must not be permitted to be extended further. Perhaps the worst provisions proposed in the House bill are those related to transshipment. Transshipment is the practice of producing textile and apparel goods in one country, and shipping it to the United States using the quota and tariff preferences reserved for a third country. The most egregious part of the House bill is that it fails to include provisions for origin verification identical to those in Article 506 of the North American Free Trade Act. This could lead to Africa and the Caribbean Basin being used as an illegal transshipment point by Asian manufacturers. It would encourage the use of non-U.S. produced fiber and fabric in apparel goods entering the United States duty-free. Finally, the House bill grants overly generous privileges and preferences to African and the Caribbean Basin countries in a unilateral fashion. There is little incentive for these countries to grant reciprocal access for products made in the United States. Mr. President, there is no question that unfair trade policies have negatively impacted employment levels in this important sector of our economy. There is no reason to believe the trade bills we are debating will lead to a different result. Furthermore, these bills raise serious national defense and foreign policy questions. Finally, many provisions, which unfortunately might be included in the final legislative product, would cause unnecessary harm to the textile and apparel industry in the United States. The textile and apparel firms may survive as they adapt to our legislative actions and changing economic conditions. American textile workers may not be so fortunate. This is my main concern--for those textile and apparel workers who work hard, pay their taxes and raise their families. This is why I have reservations about this bill. Mr. President, that is also why I am proposing an amendment to this bill. My amendment would correct an injustice in the current Trade Adjustment Assistance Program. If you accept the premise that it is good policy for the Senate to enact legislation that will result in Americans losing their jobs, then you must agree that Trade Adjustment Assistance is a program which deserves our support. This program provides extended unemployment insurance coverage and retraining benefits to displaced workers. It is the least we can do for the Americans working in the textile and apparel industry who will lose their jobs because of this bill. My amendment would correct weaknesses in the current program. The Department of Labor would have 30 days to certify that the employees who are going to lose or who have lost their jobs would be eligible for the highest possible level of benefits available under the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program. Mr. President, I call up amendment number 2410 and ask for its immediate consideration. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. It clarifies that textile workers who lose their job as a result of plant closure or relocation or as a result of a decrease in production or sales, shall receive trade adjustment assistance benefits from the Department of Labor. These benefits shall be the same as those available to workers who become employed as a result of NAFTA-related job losses. I urge support for this amendment. It is the least we can do for the thousands of Americans who are going to lose their jobs as a result of this legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep disappointment at the Justice Department's decision not to defend a law of Congress regarding voluntary confessions. Last evening, the Justice Department responded to the petition for certiorari from the Fourth Circuit Dickerson case, which had upheld 18 U.S.C. Section 3501, a law the Congress passed in 1968 to govern voluntary confessions. The Department refused to defend the law, arguing that it is unconstitutional under Miranda v. Arizona. This position should not be surprising. Earlier, the Clinton Justice Department had refused to defend the law in the lower Federal courts. It had prohibited a career Federal prosecutor from raising the statute to prevent Dickerson, a serial bank robber, from going free, and had actively refused to permit other prosecutors from using the statute. However, it had held out the possibility that it would defend the law before the Supreme Court. Indeed, prior to the time the Department was forced to take a position in the Dickerson case, the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General had indicated to the Judiciary Committee that the Department would defend Section 3501 in appropriate cases. The Attorney General's refusal to enforce the law puts her at odds with her predecessors. Former Attorneys General Meese, Thornburg, and Barr have informed me through letters that they did not prevent the statute from being used during their tenures, and indeed, that the statute had been advanced in some lower court cases in prior Administrations. They added that the law should be enforced today. During a hearing on this issue in the Judiciary Criminal Justice Oversight Subcommittee, which I chair, all the witnesses except one shared this view. The position of the Justice Department is also contrary to the views of law enforcement groups, which believe that Miranda warnings normally should be given but that we should not permit legal technicalities to stand in the way of an otherwise voluntary confession and justified prosecution. Most recently, according to press reports, even Federal prosecutors urged Justice officials to defend this law. It was all to no avail. In my view, the Department has a duty to defend this law, just as it should defend any law that is not clearly unconstitutional. Each court that has directly considered the issue has upheld the law. Nevertheless, the Justice Department will not abide by its duty to defend the statute, and I believe it is critical that the Congress file an amicus brief or intervene in the Supreme Court defending it. In this case, the Justice Department has deliberately chosen to side with defense attorneys over prosecutors and law enforcement. It has deliberately chosen to side with criminals over victims and their families. This is a serious error. The Department should not make arguments in the courts on behalf of criminals. This is a sad day for the Department of Justice.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, as we consider the African Growth and Opportunity Act, I rise to speak about the status of the United States textile and apparel industry. During my time in the Senate, there has been an ever increasing effort to give away our textile and apparel industry. This is done in the name of free trade, under the guise of promoting market-based economies and democratic governments in developing countries. In spite of all this, the textile and apparel industry still ranks second among United States manufacturing industries. Notwithstanding downsizing, automation, and unfair import competition, this industry provides jobs for over one million two hundred thousand American workers, and contributes nearly sixty billion dollars per year to the Nation's Gross Domestic product. Back in 1983 we passed the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act. This was an attempt to provide free market economic and democratic political incentives to twenty-four Caribbean Basin countries. In 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) went into effect, lowering our quotas and tariffs for imports of textiles and apparel from Canada and Mexico. The following year, the United States made further concessions upon joining the World Trade Organization. Now the Senate is considering legislation, which, in my view, will further impair the textile and apparel industry. What has been the result of these trade agreements on the textile and apparel industry in the United States? During the five-year period from 1994 to 1998, the trade imbalance (imports over exports) for textiles increased an annual average rate of 17.5 percent. For apparel, the trade deficit increased at an annual average rate of 9.8 percent. During this time period, textile and apparel imports from Mexico rose by 288 percent. Apparel imports from the Northern Marianas jumped by 300 percent. Additionally, the United States has endured a flood of textile and apparel imports from Asia. This flood of imports has had a significant impact on employment. Since 1981, just prior to the initial Caribbean Basin trade legislation, 874,400 American textile and apparel jobs have been lost. In the five years since NAFTA, which supporters argued would create more jobs in the United States, the domestic textile and apparel industry has lost 437,000 jobs. While some of these jobs have been lost as a result of restructuring and automation, major reductions in employment levels are due to the elimination of our quotas and tariffs. The textile and apparel industry is very important to my State of South Carolina. Unfortunately, the loss of textile and apparel jobs in South Carolina has been particularly devastating. Since 1987, textile employment has decreased from a high of 108,000 to 73,000 this year. This is a loss of almost 35,000 jobs, a reduction of nearly one-third of all textile jobs in South Carolina. During this same period, my State has also endured the elimination of over 50 percent of all its apparel jobs. Apparel employment is down from a high of 46,000 jobs in 1987 to 20,000 jobs today. This means almost 26,000 apparel jobs have disappeared in South Carolina. The employment impact has been felt in other States as well. More recently, from 1993 to 1998, North Carolina lost over 70,000 textile and apparel jobs; Tennessee nearly 35,000; Georgia almost 29,000; Virginia and Alabama 18,000 each; Mississippi over 17,000; and in Texas about 15,000 jobs have been lost. In Oklahoma, the entire textile and apparel industry has been lost--8,300 jobs no longer exist. What is the outlook for future employment in the textile and apparel sector? There is great uncertainty, and a wide range of estimates. What is known, Mr. President, is that by the year 2005, the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing will expire, and all quota restrictions will lapse. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the impact of this development to be at least 200,000 jobs. The American Textiles Manufacturers Institute predicts employment losses as high as 650,000. Mr. President, it does not make sense to give away American jobs. The policy of the Federal Government should be to preserve and promote job growth for Americans, not make them unemployed. I do not think that we went through the process of reforming welfare just to add to the ranks of the unemployed. The loss of textile and apparel jobs is more than just numbers, Mr. President. It affects the living conditions, health, and welfare of individuals, families and the communities in which they live. In many rural counties in South Carolina, where the textile plant or sewing factory is (or was) the only source of employment, unemployment rates range from 8 to 16 percent. Textile and apparel industries have been the economic backbone of many of these rural Southern counties. These communities have limited job opportunities. Furthermore, for a variety of reasons, the residents of these communities cannot just pick up and leave, nor is retraining a viable option in many cases. Earlier during the floor debate on this bill, a report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) was referenced during a discussion of labor productivity in the textile industry. The CRS Report notes that there has been productivity in the industry because of capital investment in labor-saving machinery. The report states, ``Rapid employment losses combined with stable output necessarily implies gains in labor productivity.'' Furthermore, it concludes that ``Many textiles factories have become almost completely machine-driven, leaving little room for further labor-savings, and the apparel industry seems ill- suited to such mechanization.'' So I wanted to clarify the record on productivity in the industry. It has come at the expense of employment. Let me now turn to a more general issue. We must consider trade legislation in the context of our broader foreign policy objectives. To a great degree, this is made more difficult given this Administration's lack of clear foreign policy objectives. Nevertheless, let me discuss a few items which I believe deserve closer review before final action on this legislation is taken. First, our foreign policy regarding Latin America and the Caribbean is basically running on empty. The United States is suffering in its own hemisphere strategically, politically, and economically. A good example is our relationship with Haiti. Despite our intervention, Haiti has advanced little toward establishing a minimally effective government. After spending tens of millions of taxpayer dollars, United States and Canadian troops are being pulled out. Second, this Administration apparently cannot frame a coherent drug policy. Currently, the United States spends $289 million on security assistance to Colombia, the third-largest recipient of such aid. Aid for Colombia and its Andean neighbors, Bolivia and Peru, was meant to begin eliminating the sources which fuel the Caribbean drug trade. Yet, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Colombian traffickers have taken over a major chunk of the United States heroin market from Southeast Asian dealers. This is in addition to their dominance in the cocaine market. It is no secret the drug criminal organizations look for the easiest route of movement--which is through the Caribbean. The closing of United States military bases in Panama this year has severely reduced America's ability to monitor the byways traffickers use to ferry drugs into the country. The biggest blow came with the closing of Howard Air Force Base, the U.S. center for anti-drug operations. Retired General George Joulwan, former commander of U.S. military forces in Latin America, testified that Howard was the ``crown jewel'' in our counter-drug operations because of its strategic location and infrastructure. Since being booted out of Panama, Administration officials have been scrambling for alternative sites to use to monitor and intercept drug traffic through the Caribbean. I am concerned that as we propose to drastically increase container shipping through the Caribbean, we will be exposing our Nation to the potential for a tremendous increase in illicit drug imports. Other Senators have addressed the issue of how Custom Agents are presently unable to adequately monitor imports. This situation is aggravated by the movement toward paperless entry, where Customs forms are electronically cleared after the foreign goods move through our ports. Mr. President, the key to resolving many of our hemispheric problems is coordinating our criminal justice efforts, defense requirements, foreign policy, and economic and trade strategy toward Latin American countries. We cannot afford to look at these in isolation of one another. Finally, let me highlight some of the more dangerous elements of legislation which some in Congress are proposing. While the Senate bill alleviates some of the worst of these issues, I want the record to be clear on why these provisions must never become law. If, by some chance, this bill moves to a conference with the House, there may be an effort to incorporate some of these proposals. This would be a terrible mistake. There are some in Congress who would favor the quota-free entry into the United States for apparel made in the Caribbean Basin countries from fabric produced anywhere in the world. Such a provision would void the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing. Another flawed proposal is the scheme to use Tariff Preference Levels, whereby fabric produced anywhere in the world may be used in apparel sewn in the Caribbean Basin countries and imported duty-free and quota-free into the United States. Such preferences are permitted under NAFTA. Canada has used its preferences to export into the United States textile and apparel products made of non-North American yarns and fabrics. This violation of NAFTA has permitted $300 million from textile mills in Europe and Asia to severely damage U.S. manufacturers of wool suits and wool fabrics as well as other U.S. producers. Likewise, Mexico is now sending textiles and apparel made from cheap Asian yarns and fabrics into the United States. Tariff Preference Levels are bad for the American textile and apparel industry and for its workers. They must not be permitted to be extended further. Perhaps the worst provisions proposed in the House bill are those related to transshipment. Transshipment is the practice of producing textile and apparel goods in one country, and shipping it to the United States using the quota and tariff preferences reserved for a third country. The most egregious part of the House bill is that it fails to include provisions for origin verification identical to those in Article 506 of the North American Free Trade Act. This could lead to Africa and the Caribbean Basin being used as an illegal transshipment point by Asian manufacturers. It would encourage the use of non-U.S. produced fiber and fabric in apparel goods entering the United States duty-free. Finally, the House bill grants overly generous privileges and preferences to African and the Caribbean Basin countries in a unilateral fashion. There is little incentive for these countries to grant reciprocal access for products made in the United States. I have outlined the current economic standing of the United States textile and apparel industry. There is no question that unfair trade policies have negatively impacted employment levels in this important sector of our economy. There is no reason to believe the trade bills we are debating will lead to a different result. Furthermore, these bills raise serious national defense and foreign policy questions. Finally, many provisions, which unfortunately might be included in the final legislative product, would cause unnecessary harm to the textile and apparel industry in the United States. The textile and apparel firms may survive as they adapt to our legislative actions and changing economic conditions. American textile workers may not be so fortunate. This is my main concern--for those textile and apparel workers who work hard, pay their taxes and raise their families. This is why I have reservations about this bill.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, it gives me no pleasure to rise today and seek recognition, for it is to carry out a very sad task, which is to mark the passing of one of my longest and closest friends, Judge Charles E. Simons, Jr. of Aiken, South Carolina. Judge Simons has served with distinction as a Federal District Court Judge for the District of South Carolina since his confirmation in 1964. It was my pleasure to recommend this talented and bright man to President Johnson, and everyone who monitors the Federal Bench has been impressed with the skill and insight in which Judge Simons adjudicated cases. His reputation is that of being a tough, but fair, judge whose impartiality is above reproach and whose commitment to the rule of law is well known. The respect and admiration of the legal community for Judge Simons is evidenced by the fact that the Federal Courthouse on Park Avenue in Aiken was dedicated in his honor in 1987. Certainly a fitting tribute to a man who dedicated thirty-five years of his life to the Federal Bench and had served as the Chief Judge of the District Court for six years. I must confess that Charles Simons was well known to me before I advanced his name to the President, for he and I had been law partners in Aiken, South Carolina for many years. He was such an able and intelligent man, he was a great asset to our practice. In 1954, we had to end our partnership because of my election to the United States Senate, but Charles Simons continued to prosper as an attorney, earning a well deserved reputation as an outstanding general practice lawyer. While Charles Simons loved his work and the law, it was not an all consuming passion, and he enjoyed many other activities outside the courtroom. South Carolina is a beautiful state, and its citizens eagerly engage in activities that allow them to spend as much time as possible outside enjoying the natural beauty of the Palmetto State. For Charles Simons, these activities included golf, hunting, and fishing, each which he pursued with an unflagging enthusiasm. These pursuits not only allowed him a temporary reprieve from the weighty responsibilities of the duties of a Federal District Court Judge, but they also allowed him to spend time with his friends. One of the things that bonds friendships is shared interests, and both Charles and I had a shared interest in physical fitness. He remained a fit and active man right up until July of this year when he suffered brain damage as a result of a fall. Sadly, surgery did not return Charles to his previous health and he began a decline that resulted in his death yesterday at the age of eighty-three. Though his passing was not entirely unexpected, it still is a blow to his family and friends and to the South Carolina legal community. While many mourn the death of Charles Simons, we should take the opportunity to be certain we celebrate his life and accomplishments. He served the nation in a time of war, he was an accomplished attorney, a respected judge, and a devoted family man. He leaves a body of work that stands as case law and he has set a standard for other public servants to follow. All these accomplishments are even more impressive when one considers Charles' humble beginnings and the fact that he accomplished all he did through hard work, determination, and intelligence. I am deeply saddened to have lost such a good friend and I share the grief of the Simons' family. They have my deepest sympathies and my heartfelt condolences on the death of Charles.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am deeply saddened to have to note the unexpected passing of our friend and colleague, Senator John Chafee of Rhode Island. I doubt that anyone expected that this week would begin by learning that Senator Chafee had been felled by a heart attack last evening. He was a man of relatively young age, great vigor and vitality. He was in his last year of a distinguished Senate career of almost twenty-five years, and I know he was looking forward to returning to Rhode Island to enjoy life with family and friends in what is a beautiful, coastal state. Senator Chafee was a proud New Englander, and he exhibited many of the fabled characteristics of those who live in the northeastern region of our nation. He was a thoughtful man, as was demonstrated by both his consideration for others, as well as the careful examination he would give to the issues put before him. John Chafee marched in lockstep with no one, he was guided by his principles and beliefs and by a firm conviction of what was right and wrong. Though most of us knew John Chafee from his tenure in the United States Senate, he was already a committed public servant long before he was elected to this chamber in 1976. As a United States Marine, he risked his life in two conflicts, World War II and Korea, and like so many of his generation, John sought to make a difference through public service. He held office as a member of the Rhode Island House of Representatives, as Governor of Rhode Island, and as Secretary of the Navy under President Richard M. Nixon. Unquestionably, the experience he gained throughout his career was most beneficial to him as a United States Senator, for he always demonstrated a mastery and depth of issues that was almost unparalleled. Furthermore, John was a gentleman, and no matter how heated the debate, one could always count on him to weigh-in with what was a considered opinion; and, more often than not, was one that reflected that famous common sense approach for which New Englanders are renown. Through his work, Senator Chafee leaves an impressive legacy of legislation, and his contributions to this body and the United States will not soon be forgotten. For his wife Virginia, daughter Georgia, and sons John, Jr., Lincoln, Quentin, and Zechariah, he leaves an even more important and valuable legacy, that of a loving and devoted husband and father. We mourn for the loss the Chafees suffered, we mourn for the loss of our colleague, we mourn for the loss of a good friend and a good man.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, one of the most unpleasant tasks we carry-out is to come to the Senate Floor in order to mark the passage of friends who have died. Today, it is my sad duty to share my memories of a man who was not only a valued friend, but one of the nation's treasures, Mr. Frederick ``Rick'' Hart, who passed away unexpectedly in August. All recognize that Washington is the capital of the United States, and almost all also recognize it as a beautiful city, with impressive, inspiring and humbling architecture and monuments. People from all over the world travel to the District of Columbia to see and visit places such as the Capitol, the White House, the Vietnam War Memorial, and the National Cathedral. Through their explorations of Washington, millions of people have been exposed to, and moved by, the art work of Rick Hart. Rick Hart was one of the world's most talented and appreciated sculptors who created many impressive pieces during his career, but it is two pieces in particular with which visitors to Washington are most familiar. Though they may have never known that these two pieces were created by Rick Hart, countless individuals have been taken by the ``Creation'' at the National Cathedral and ``Three Soldiers'' at the Vietnam War Memorial. It is appropriate that one of Rick's most famous sculptures is to be found at the National Cathedral, for it was there that he began his career as an apprentice stone carver, working on the gargoyles that adorn the gothic structure. From the beginning of his involvement in art, it was obvious that Rick was a man of tremendous talent and creativity. This was proven unquestionably when at age thirty-one his design for a sculpture to adorn the west facade of the Cathedral was picked after an international call for submissions. One decade after his design for the National Cathedral was accepted, his emotion evoking sculpture of ``Three Soldiers'' was dedicated in November of 1984 as a supplement to the Vietnam War Memorial. It certainly must have been a challenge for this artist to go from creating a work that helped to express the glory of creation and God with a work that stands as a reminder to those who served and died in Vietnam. Not surprisingly, Rick rose to the challenge and sculpted what has become one of the most recognized and respected military sculptures in the world, and one that helps to pay appropriate homage to all those who participated in that conflict. All that Rick accomplished in his life is that much more impressive given his humble and hard beginnings. Born in Atlanta, Georgia, Rick lost his mother at an early age and was reared in rural South Carolina for much of his young life, until he and his father moved to Washington. Rick was a bright man with both his hands and his mind, and his exceedingly high Scholastic Aptitude Test scores allowed his entrance in college at the young age of sixteen. Just as many who have been born and raised in the South have done, Rick chose to return ``home'', and he enrolled in the University of South Carolina as a philosophy student. Rick's higher education also include studies at the Corcoran and American University, where ironically, he was scheduled to give the commencement address at next year's graduation and to be awarded an honorary degree. My chief of Staff, R.J. ``Duke'' Short, his wife Dee, and our good friend Harry Sacks have been friends of Rick for many year, and it was they who introduced me to Rick back in 1995. Rick generously and graciously volunteered to create a bust of me which has been donated to he United States Senate and is on display not far from this Chamber, in Senate-238, also known as ``The Strom Thurmond Room.'' In order to script by bust, Rick and I spent a considerable amount of time together. Rick was a warm, outgoing, and humble man and it was obvious that creating works of art was a passion for him. Though still very young, only in his fifties, Rick suffered a serious health setback last year when he was felled with a stroke. Strong and vital, Rick was making an impressive recovery when he was admitted to Johns Hopkins Hospital in August to be treated for pneumonia. Tragically, doctors discovered that his body has been overtaken by cancer and he had quite literally only days to live. His death was sudden, unexpected, and tragic, and has left all of us pondering how someone so vital could be taken at such a young age. His passing saddens all who knew him and his death leaves a tremendous void in the American art community. My condolences and sympathies are with his wife Lindy and sons Alexander and Lain. While their husband and father may no longer be here, Frederick ``Rick'' Hart has achieved a kind of immortality through his great works of art.